Author
Topic: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington (Read 89345 times)

I'm much more worried about the crowd he is surrounding himself with. His own ambition is probably pumping as much money as possible to his companies and fattening his investment portfolio while basking in the limelight as the president. The real damage is going to be done by his cabinet and advisors and of course the Republican Congress and Senate.

I'm all for it but it should be a long term project. The only way it would be possible to start during Trump's presidency would be to submit to the Republicans. Like I said earlier, I think that the party institution and the leaders of the conservative movement need to be fought as long as they promote harmful policies. Without a position of strength it is not possible to accomplish much since the Republican agenda involves making sure the country stays divided.

I think a good way to make sure Trump doesn't get a second term is to try and heal the political divides. He was able to win partly because he exploited them to his advantage.

Really, I think we could all stand to be a little more tolerant of opposing viewpoints.

I"m... not sure what you are going for. Can you give some examples of characteristically right-wing talking points that are treated by the political left, not just inadequately, but with undeserved intolerance? Preferably from those divides that Trump was able to "exploit to his advantage"?

I think a good way to make sure Trump doesn't get a second term is to try and heal the political divides. He was able to win partly because he exploited them to his advantage.

Really, I think we could all stand to be a little more tolerant of opposing viewpoints.

I can tolerate people being pissed off because they are unemployed because their factory moved to Mexico just fine, it's perfectly justifiable. I don't see why anybody should tolerate people who then go on to blame Mexicans specifically. Shittiness is shittiness.

I'm much more worried about the crowd he is surrounding himself with. His own ambition is probably pumping as much money as possible to his companies and fattening his investment portfolio while basking in the limelight as the president. The real damage is going to be done by his cabinet and advisors and of course the Republican Congress and Senate.

I'm seeing a lot of worrying comparisons with Bush's relationship with his advisers. Ambitious ideologues who want to steer the country in their chosen direction and a president who can't be bothered with the technical details. That's what happened with Bush/Cheney and it led directly to Iraq and the implosion of that country and neighbouring ISIS.

(also, the alt-right, neo-nazis, the KKK, maybe add up to a few tens of thousands of people. Their votes don't win elections. It was the good old regular right that mattered.)

When their voice is raised above the rest and legitimized it becomes a powerful political weapon. Their rhetoric uses the ignorant racism to pull the right as a whole closer to them and shapes and directs the largely legitimate anger of the white poor and working class people. Attacks against the extremists can be twisted into an attack against all the right wing voters and make the liberal elite, the minorities and the left wing in general a common enemy that is an existential threat to their identity.

I don't deny that the alt-right was significant (if nothing else, in drawing the focus of the left away from things that mattered more). I'm saying they are not a substantial part of Trump voters.

I think a good way to make sure Trump doesn't get a second term is to try and heal the political divides. He was able to win partly because he exploited them to his advantage.

Really, I think we could all stand to be a little more tolerant of opposing viewpoints.

I"m... not sure what you are going for. Can you give some examples of characteristically right-wing talking points that are treated by the political left, not just inadequately, but with undeserved intolerance? Preferably from those divides that Trump was able to "exploit to his advantage"?

That's not quite what I was getting at, but I guess I can give you an example. I used to roll my eyes at right-wingers complaining about the "liberal media". But now I think they have a point. Just look at the dirty laundry Wikileaks aired.

(also, the alt-right, neo-nazis, the KKK, maybe add up to a few tens of thousands of people. Their votes don't win elections. It was the good old regular right that mattered.)

When their voice is raised above the rest and legitimized it becomes a powerful political weapon. Their rhetoric uses the ignorant racism to pull the right as a whole closer to them and shapes and directs the largely legitimate anger of the white poor and working class people. Attacks against the extremists can be twisted into an attack against all the right wing voters and make the liberal elite, the minorities and the left wing in general a common enemy that is an existential threat to their identity.

I don't deny that the alt-right was significant (if nothing else, in drawing the focus of the left away from things that mattered more). I'm saying they are not a substantial part of Trump voters.

The alt-right has never been big and that's never been the point of them. Alt right fester-holes like /pol/ are filled with imagery and attitudes designed specifically to chase away outsiders but one thing the alt-right learned from the campaign that must not be named is that you can appear larger than you actually are and have a real impact (at least in the short term) disproportionate to your actual size merely by strategic trolling.

That's not quite what I was getting at, but I guess I can give you an example. I used to roll my eyes at right-wingers complaining about the "liberal media". But now I think they have a point. Just look at the dirty laundry Wikileaks aired.

I don't know. The DNC emails were less "skeletons in the closet" and more "dirty laundry". Disgusting, depressing, for sure, but there's nothing there that I would call surprising. If anything, the amount and extent of media collusion revealed by the leaks was actually less than I expected.

As for the "liberal mainstream media" phrase... well, its history put aside, the accusation in itself isn't exactly wrong. CNN, NBC, NYT & co do tend to favor views that are seen as "left-wing" in the context of American politics, and while it is true that "reality has a liberal bias" on science-related issues, it cannot explain everything. Coupled with an inherent slant towards the societal (not just political) establishment they are an integral part of, this typically translates into tacit support for the Dems.

What makes it eyeroll-worthy is that the loudest accusations of liberal bias tend to come from people who either trust, work for, or are propped by media outlets on the other side of the fence that have rather flimsier claims of basic trustfulness, let alone objectivity. It is almost never used as a warning to keep a critical and analytical mind, and almost always as an incentive to use the "right" sources of information.

That's not quite what I was getting at, but I guess I can give you an example. I used to roll my eyes at right-wingers complaining about the "liberal media". But now I think they have a point. Just look at the dirty laundry Wikileaks aired.

I don't know. The DNC emails were less "skeletons in the closet" and more "dirty laundry". Disgusting, depressing, for sure, but there's nothing there that I would call surprising. If anything, the amount and extent of media collusion revealed by the leaks was actually less than I expected.

As for the "liberal mainstream media" phrase... well, its history put aside, the accusation in itself isn't exactly wrong. CNN, NBC, NYT & co do tend to favor views that are seen as "left-wing" in the context of American politics, and while it is true that "reality has a liberal bias" on science-related issues, it cannot explain everything. Coupled with an inherent slant towards the societal (not just political) establishment they are an integral part of, this typically translates into tacit support for the Dems.

What makes it eyeroll-worthy is that the loudest accusations of liberal bias tend to come from people who either trust, work for, or are propped by media outlets on the other side of the fence that have rather flimsier claims of basic trustfulness, let alone objectivity. It is almost never used as a warning to keep a critical and analytical mind, and almost always as an incentive to use the "right" sources of information.